WASHINGTON — Snap back? Not so fast.
The
biggest enforcement provision in the preliminary nuclear agreement with
Iran is turning into one of the mostly hotly contested elements. And
the debate barely involves Iran.
Instead,
it concerns the Obama administration's promise to quickly re-impose
sanctions on Iran if the Islamic Republic cheats on any part of the
agreement to limit its nuclear program to peaceful pursuits.
This
would be relatively straightforward for the sanctions imposed by the
U.S., as Congress is eager to keep the pressure on. But it is far from
clear whether President Barack Obama can guarantee such action at the
United Nations, which has imposed wide-ranging penalties that all U.N.
members must enforce.
At
present, there's no firm agreement on how or when to lift the sanctions
in the first place. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, and
President Hassan Rouhani said Thursday they want all sanctions lifted on
the first day of implementation. That's not the position of U.S. and
other negotiators, a major issue that still must be worked out.
Assuming it can be, that still would leave the big question of possible re-imposition.
The
disagreement on this issue is between the U.S. and its European allies
on one side, and Russia and China on the other — all countries involved
in the nuclear negotiations. And even though all six world powers and
Iran agreed last week to the framework agreement that is supposed to be
finalized by June 30, the "snapback" mechanism for U.N. sanctions
remains poorly defined and may prove unworkable.
"If Iran violates the deal, sanctions can be snapped back into place," Obama declared last week.
He
went further this week, saying that restoring the international
sanctions would not require consensus among U.N. Security Council
members. And Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, who helped seal last week's
pact, insisted "no one country could block the snapback."
That
assertion rests on an informal compromise reached at the talks in
Lausanne, Switzerland, to bypass the typical U.N. Security Council
process if Iran breaks the agreement. Normally in that body, any one of
the five permanent members — the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and
China, which are all party to the Iran negotiations — can veto
resolutions.
But
many questions remain, including what would happen if two or more
countries object. Russia and China have traditionally opposed almost all
U.N. sanctions measures, and, perhaps tellingly, neither country's
foreign minister was present when the April 2 framework was unveiled.
Washington
and its negotiating partners plan to suspend or lift many sanctions
after the U.N. nuclear agency confirms Iran has scaled back its activity
in accordance with a final deal. But the U.S. and its European partners
want the capacity to quickly reinstate the restrictions if Iran
reneges.
The
U.N. sanctions ban the transfer of nuclear and ballistic missile
technology to Iran, freeze assets of companies and individuals involved
in the country's uranium enrichment program, impose an arms embargo on
Iran and sharply limit the international activities of Iranian banks.
All are penalties the U.S. wants fully enforced if Iran doesn't comply
with a final deal.
The
Obama administration is tossing around different ideas to ensure it can
snap back the U.N. sanctions, though there are problems with all of
them.
One
idea would put the burden on the U.N. Security Council. Rather than
voting to re-impose sanctions, it would have to vote to stop the
automatic re-imposition, officials said. Or, an extraordinary procedure
could be created with the permanent, veto-holding members voting by
majority.
Russia
and China are unlikely to accept any process that sees them sacrifice
their veto power. And they could block any plan with Iran that would
leave them powerless to stop majority votes by the U.S. and its European
allies.
In
each scenario and others, the final agreement will include
"automaticity," the sense of sanctions returning automatically, a senior
U.S. official said. That official and the others weren't authorized to
speak publicly on the deliberations and demanded anonymity.
In
an interview with NPR Monday, Obama said the sanctions would be
"triggered" when the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency
identified a "very real problem" and a majority of countries involved
agreed. But that process also is undefined — and slow.
The
IAEA's 35-nation board includes countries sympathetic to Iran. Also
members are Russia and China, powers that are concerned about the
country's nuclear ambitions yet seek closer commercial, economic,
military and even nuclear ties. The organization's rulings can take
weeks, months and even years.
Further
complicating matters, a U.S. fact sheet released after the diplomatic
breakthrough in Switzerland mentions a "dispute resolution process" that
would enable Iran or anyone else to raise disagreements and seek
compromises through mediation — yet another element officials say hasn't
been agreed to in detail.
"I don't want to give the false impression that we have all this resolved," Obama said this week.
Questions
are everywhere. In the buildup to the framework, French officials
questioned if the U.N. sanctions could be snapped back into place at
all. They suggested the U.N. penalties be kept in place for years.
In
Congress, lawmakers threatening to get involved in Obama's diplomacy
are concerned as well. Sen. Ben Cardin, the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee's top Democrat, is among those asking about snapback
sanctions.
"Undertaking
the 'snapback' of sanctions is unlikely to be as clear or as automatic
as the phrase implies," former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and
George Shultz said in a joint opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal.
"Restoring
the most effective sanctions will require coordinated international
action," they wrote. With commercial interests and popular opinion
swaying some countries against a prompt snapback, any U.S. attempt at
forcing such a move "risks primarily isolating America, not Iran."
No comments:
Post a Comment